Automation Solution

In the previous chapter, you learned about schedulable events and services, each with an exercise for you to complete. Make sure you have worked on your own before looking below for a solution.

To follow along with IntelliJ, you need to open the 070-services folder as a project.

Schedulable event

The point of the exercise was to inform the vault that the seller wants to reject the proposal as soon as it expires. There are a couple flows to reject a proposal. The decision was made to use the one that takes a SalesProposal id and the rejecter:

public RejectSimpleFlow(
        @NotNull final UniqueIdentifier proposalId,
        @NotNull final AbstractParty rejecter) {

So, the SalesProposal state was made schedulable:

public class SalesProposal implements LinearState, SchedulableState {

Which means it had to implement:

public ScheduledActivity nextScheduledActivity(
        @NotNull final StateRef thisStateRef,
        @NotNull final FlowLogicRefFactory flowLogicRefFactory) {
    return new ScheduledActivity(
            flowLogicRefFactory.create(SCHEDULED_FLOW, linearId, seller),

Where the name of the flow is:

    public static final String SCHEDULED_FLOW = "com.template.proposal.flow.SalesProposalRejectFlows$RejectSimpleFlow";

The reason why the flow has to be called by name is because it is defined in the workflow module, which is unknown from this contract module.

This also means that both the seller’s and the buyer’s vaults would attempt to reject, but only the seller’s vault has the seller’s key. Therefore the flow had to be adjusted:

if (!getServiceHub().getKeyManagementService().filterMyKeys(
        Collections.singleton(rejecter.getOwningKey())).iterator().hasNext()) {
    throw new FlowException("Rejecter key unknown");

To give a meaningful error on the buyer’s node. What .filterMyKeys does is keep the public keys with private keys that are known to the nodes.

Why not have the SalesProposal itself filter, and return null on the buyer’s vault? Well, the state itself does not have access to the vault, so the verification needs to happen downstream.

Schedulable tests

The tests have also been modified. Actually, this gets a bit tricky. The reject flow tests have been split into 2 files, each with a different initialisation:

  • In the existing one, reject flows are tested as if there were no schedulable actions.
  • In the new one, the mock network is initialized:
    • With an extra parameter: .withThreadPerNode(true).
    • Every network.runNetwork() have been replaced by network.waitQuiescent().

When discovering tests on the cordapp-example, you were already introduced to the fact that you can count how many times you need to pump the network with .runNetwork(count) for your flow to complete. This new .waitQuiescent is more sensitive in that, as the name suggests, it waits for all activity to settle down.

Use .waitQuiescent only when necessary, as this slows down your flow tests, which are not especially fast to begin with. This is also the reason why those reject flow tests are now split into two.


The point of this exercise was to inform the potential buyer of a change in information on the car.

How to inform

The buyer needs to receive the new CarTokenType state, and save it to their vault. For that, the best choice is the SignedTransaction-flavored DataVendingFlow: SendTransactionFlow.

The InformTokenBuyerFlows flow pair has:

  • The initiating Send flow.
  • The responding Receive flow.

Since this is not your first rodeo flow, there is no need to say too much. The Send flow requires the strictly necessary inputs:

public Send(@NotNull final AbstractParty buyer,
            @NotNull final SignedTransaction tx,
            @NotNull final ProgressTracker progressTracker) {

Resolves the buyer’s host:

final Party buyerHost = getServiceHub().getIdentityService()
final FlowSession buyerSession = initiateFlow(buyerHost);

Then sends the buyer information, for verification purposes, and the transaction:

subFlow(new SendTransactionFlow(buyerSession, tx));

Then, this is not necessary, but nice to allow bubbling up of exceptions, it expects to receive an ok of some sort:

buyerSession.receive(String.class).unwrap(it -> it);

You will see that, on the buyer’s side, relevant checks are done after all information has been received, i.e. after the initiator is done with sending all information. This means that the FlowSession has been closed from the initiator’s end. If at this point, the responder attempts to send back a FlowException, it will not work, leaving the initiator in the dark about it.

On the buyer side, expectedly:

final AbstractParty buyer = sellerSession.receive(AbstractParty.class).unwrap(it -> it);

If this flow accepted each and every transaction sent, it would be an avenue for a vault-spamming attack. So here comes the first verification.

if (!getServiceHub().getKeyManagementService()
    throw new FlowException("This buyer is not hosted here");

What filterMyKeys does is return only the keys whose private key can be found. If it is empty, it means that no key could be resolved, i.e. that the buyer is not hosted on this node. Next, it is time to receive the transaction proper:

final SignedTransaction tx = subFlow(new ReceiveTransactionFlow(sellerSession));

But is it relevant? This flow is used to send updates on an evolvable token type, like CarTokenType:

final List<UniqueIdentifier> outputIds = tx.getCoreTransaction().outputsOfType(EvolvableTokenType.class)
if (outputIds.isEmpty()) throw new FlowException("No EvolvableTokenType, stopping");

Associated with a SalesProposal of the quoted buyer:

if (!isRelevant(buyer, outputIds))
    throw new FlowException("There is no SalesProposal here for this transaction");

Where isRelevant fetches all the SalesProposal with which the buyer is involved, and checks if any is pointing to one of the newly received information:

private boolean isRelevant(
        @NotNull final AbstractParty buyer,
        @NotNull final List<UniqueIdentifier> outputIds) throws TransactionResolutionException {
    // Do we have a SalesProposal with the seller?
    final List<StateAndRef<SalesProposal>> states = getServiceHub().getVaultService().queryBy(
            new QueryCriteria.LinearStateQueryCriteria().withParticipants(Collections.singletonList(buyer)))
    boolean relevant = false;
    // Because of the checked exception, we cannot use .stream().
    for (StateAndRef<SalesProposal> salesProposalStateAndRef : states) {
        final TokenType it = extractTokenType(salesProposalStateAndRef);
        // You have to account for the fact that some SalesProposals may use a fixed TokenType.
        if (it.isPointer()) {
            //noinspection unchecked
            final UniqueIdentifier linearId = ((TokenPointer<EvolvableTokenType>) it).getPointer()
            if (outputIds.contains(linearId)) {
                relevant = true;
    return relevant;
getServiceHub().recordTransactions(StatesToRecord.ALL_VISIBLE, Collections.singleton(tx));

When satisfied, it is time to record and send an “Ok”. The state is forced to be recorded because it is not a participant to the transaction. Otherwise it would have received it in the first place, after all. With this final “Ok” sent, the flow session can finally be closed.

How to monitor

This is where the service comes into play. It has to be declared:

public class SalesProposalService extends SingletonSerializeAsToken {

It keeps locally relevant data for its operation. Sufficiently generic to be used with types other than CarTokenType:

private final Map<StateAndRef<? extends EvolvableTokenType>, List<AbstractParty>> trackedTypesToBuyers;


  • The key is the CarTokenType that has been offered in a SalesProposal.
  • The values are the potential buyers. It has to be a list because the service is not in control of how many times the same car is offered.

Simple functions

The service declares a number of boilerplate functions that are used by the more interesting functions. Have a look at them if you are interested.

The service declares a number of boilerplate functions that are used by the more interesting functions. Notice how they are public as they do not modify the service’s state.


Information about what is being tracked

public int getTokenTypeCount() {
    return trackedTypesToBuyers.size();

public List<AbstractParty> getBuyersOf(@NotNull final StateAndRef<? extends EvolvableTokenType> tokenType) {
    return trackedTypesToBuyers.get(tokenType);

Forced conversion of a generic

public StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType> convertToType(@NotNull final StateAndRef<ContractState> state) {
    return new StateAndRef<>(
            new TransactionState<>(
                    (EvolvableTokenType) state.getState().getData(),

Content extraction

public StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType> getTokenType(@NotNull final SalesProposal proposal)
        throws TransactionResolutionException {
    final TokenType type = proposal.getAsset().resolve(serviceHub).getState().getData().getTokenType();
    if (!type.isPointer()) return null;
    //noinspection unchecked
    return ((TokenPointer<EvolvableTokenType>) type)

It has to account for the fact that some SalesProposals may have an asset with a fixed TokenType.


Ability to know if a key is relevant

public boolean isMyKey(@NotNull final AbstractParty who) {
    return serviceHub.getKeyManagementService()

Which mirrors what was found in the flow above.


Additional logger

private final static Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SalesProposalService.class);

To facilitate logging with headers and such.

The boilerplate allows simple functions that are needed for clarity, adding to the tracking:

private void putProposal(@NotNull final SalesProposal proposal) throws TransactionResolutionException {
    // If we are not the seller, we do not need to watch.
    if (!isMyKey(proposal.getSeller())) return;
    final StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType> tokenType = getTokenType(proposal);
    // If it is not evolvable, there is nothing to track.
    if (tokenType == null) return;
    final List<AbstractParty> buyers = trackedTypesToBuyers.get(tokenType);
    if (buyers == null) {
        trackedTypesToBuyers.put(tokenType, new ArrayList<>(Collections.singletonList(proposal.getBuyer())));
    } else {

Notice how it makes sure not to add unnecessary elements to tracking. In particular:

  • It is the seller that is meant to track, so as to inform the buyer. The reverse is not necessary.
  • There is no need to track non-evolvable token types.

Remember, to be able to remove the proposal from the tracking:

private void removeProposal(@NotNull final SalesProposal proposal) throws TransactionResolutionException {
    final StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType> tokenType = getTokenType(proposal);
    // If it is not evolvable, nothing was tracked in the first place.
    if (tokenType == null) return;

Track and notify

Ok, time for the meat of the subject. As part of its tracking, the service needs to be updated by updates from the vault. For this, the tool is getVaultService().trackBy. Ideally, you would run 2 such .trackBy:

  • One for SalesProposal.
  • The other for EvolvableTokenType.

In practice, in a single service, these 2 trackBy are competing for the database connection, so a single one, on ContractState has to be used. Another potential pitfall is that if you do not provide any QueryCriteria, then a default one will be made. And the default one is for Vault.StateStatus.UNCONSUMED states. Recall the reject transaction? It consumes a single state and has no output. If it relied on the default query critera, this transaction would be missed.

Additionally, although trackBy gives you updates, it does not tell you about the state of the database at the start. So you need to add a queryBy too, this one specifically for SalesProposal since CarTokenTypes alone are not enough.

Plus, to mitigate the fact that updates may have arisen between the time you queryBy and the time you trackBy, it is advisable to start with trackBy. So here it is:

private void trackAndNotify() {
                    new QueryCriteria.VaultQueryCriteria(Vault.StateStatus.ALL))
            error -> log.error("In ContractState tracking", error),
            () ->"ContractState updates closed!"));
            .forEach(it -> {
                try {
                } catch (TransactionResolutionException e) {
                    log.error("Failed to resolve asset", e);

Because of the StaticPointer it alway runs the risk of failing to resolve a transaction hash. Better not stop the process in this case.

If the .subscribe(onNext, onError, onDone) bit looks unfamiliar to you, have a look at RxJava. That will serve you well beyond this course.

As you can see, the queryBy starts by populating the existing SalesProposals using the putProposal function covered earlier. Now, have a look at this::handleUpdate.

Handle updates

Where you dispatch actions.

private void handleUpdate(@NotNull final Vault.Update<ContractState> update) {
    final Map<UniqueIdentifier, StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType>> toNotify = new HashMap<>();
    update.getConsumed().forEach(it -> {
        if (it.getState().getData() instanceof SalesProposal) {
            try {
                removeProposal((SalesProposal) it.getState().getData());
            } catch (TransactionResolutionException e) {
                log.error("Failed to resolve asset", e);
        } else if (it.getState().getData() instanceof EvolvableTokenType) {
            final StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType> consumed = convertToType(it);
            if (trackedTypesToBuyers.get(consumed) != null) {
                final UniqueIdentifier id = consumed.getState().getData().getLinearId();
                assert toNotify.get(id) == null; // Because it should be the first time we see it.
                toNotify.put(id, consumed);
    toNotify.forEach((id, state) -> {
        if (trackedTypesToBuyers.get(state) == null) toNotify.remove(id);
    update.getProduced().forEach(it -> {
        if (it.getState().getData() instanceof SalesProposal) {
            try {
                putProposal((SalesProposal) it.getState().getData());
            } catch (TransactionResolutionException e) {
                log.error("Failed to resolve asset", e);
        } else if (it.getState().getData() instanceof EvolvableTokenType) {
            final StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType> produced = convertToType(it);
            final StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType> consumed = toNotify.get(produced.getState().getData().getLinearId());
            if (consumed != null) {
                trackedTypesToBuyers.put(produced, trackedTypesToBuyers.get(consumed));
                notifyUpdate(consumed, produced);
    toNotify.forEach((key, value) -> trackedTypesToBuyers.remove(value));

Ok, it is admittedly a bit chunky. You have to understand, a Vault.Update has many attributes, but those of interest here are consumed states, and produced states. And, only those of the relevant types. Remember that it would have been pleasant to launch 2 trackBy, but this luxury was not available.

The easy bit is what to do about SalesProposal:

  • Produced -> putProposal
  • Consumed -> removeProposal

For the EvolvableTokenTypes, it is more involved. The unicity guide for those is their linear id. So

  • When a type appears only in produced, it means it is new and was not tracked.
  • When a type was consumed and was tracked, its replacement needs to be sent over.

That’s why it starts by looking into consumed. But because it looks at all consumed first, then only does it look at all produced, it needs to keep the information from one loop to the next. That’s the role of the map:

// Map key: EvolvableTokenType linear id
// Map value: Tracked and consumed EvolvableTokenType
final Map<UniqueIdentifier, StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType>> toNotify = new HashMap<>();

When it finds a consumed type that fits the bill, it is added:

if (trackedTypesToBuyers.get(consumed) != null) {
    final UniqueIdentifier id = consumed.getState().getData().getLinearId();
    assert toNotify.get(id) == null; // Because it should be the first time we see it.
    toNotify.put(id, consumed);

When done with the consumed part, it still needs to account for the fact that perhaps a state was marked for notification when in fact, later in the loop, a SalesProposal removed it from the overall tracking. If this was so, there is no point in keeping this state for the next part of the function. Hence the cleanup:

toNotify.forEach((id, state) -> {
    if (trackedTypesToBuyers.get(state) == null) toNotify.remove(id);

After that, while looping through the produced ones, it decides to notify if it finds a match in the curated consumed map:

final StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType> produced = convertToType(it);
final UniqueIdentifier id = produced.getState().getData().getLinearId();
final StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType> consumed = toNotify.get(id);
if (consumed != null) {
    trackedTypesToBuyers.put(produced, trackedTypesToBuyers.get(consumed));
    notifyUpdate(consumed, produced);

Because the SalesProposal is still on, it makes sense to keep tracking but on the newly produced state.

You know that at the current stage of the Tokens SDK it is not possible for an EvolvableTokenType to completely exit the ledger since there is no destroy command for it. However, if such a command is created in the future, this service aims to be ready. That’s why the function ends with forgetting the unlikely remainders:

toNotify.forEach((key, value) -> trackedTypesToBuyers.remove(value));

Now, what is notifyUpdate?

Push the information

Pushing the information to the buyers is, unsurprisingly, the role of notifyUpdate:

private void notifyUpdate(
        @NotNull final StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType> consumed,
        @NotNull final StateAndRef<EvolvableTokenType> replacement) {
    final UniqueIdentifier stateId = consumed.getState().getData().getLinearId();
    final List<AbstractParty> buyers = trackedTypesToBuyers.get(consumed);
    final SignedTransaction tx = serviceHub.getValidatedTransactions().getTransaction(
    assert buyers != null;
    assert tx != null; // Should never happen.
    for (final AbstractParty buyer : buyers)
        executor.execute(() ->
                serviceHub.startTrackedFlow(new InformTokenBuyerFlows.Send(buyer, tx))
                                result ->"Notified buyer " + buyer + " of change of " + stateId +
                                        "with result " + result),
                                e -> log.error("Failed to notify buyer " + buyer + " of change of " + stateId, e),
                                () -> trackedTypesToBuyers.remove(consumed)

Another chunky one. It starts inconspicuously by gathering the required information:

  • The buyers as per the tracking.
  • The transaction that executed the EvolvableTokenType replacement.

Then, it hands over to the InformTokenBuyerFlows.Send flow. Note the use of an executor. For an in-depth explanation, look here. In short, flows, via checkpoints, block the thread on which they are running which would mean blocking the service right there. Not to mention that the service is meant to not be serialized because of SingletonSerializeAsToken

So the service offloads these actions to an executor with a number of threads and hopes for the best. This was not tested under load.

As a side-note, serviceHub.startTrackedFlow was used instead of serviceHub.startFlow in order to receive updates. In particular, when it is done so that the service may stop tracking the consumed state:

() -> trackedTypesToBuyers.remove(consumed)

And, there you have it. The service that keeps buyers informed, informs only those that are meant to be kept informed.


  1. InformTokenBuyerFlowsTests test:

    • That the flow fails when given the wrong transaction.
    • That it stores the state on success.
  2. SalesProposalServiceTests test:

    • That the service does not track irrelevant data.
    • That it tracks relevant data.
    • That the the buyer is informed.
    • That it no longer tracks when the proposal is reject by the buyer.
  3. SalesProposalServiceAndSchedulableTests test:

    • That the service no longer tracks when the proposal is automatically deleted by the seller’s schedulable event. Talk about automation…
    • Here too, it has to use network.waitQuiescent.


You learned how to code a service while learning a bit more about the vault, executors and the mock network.

Was this page helpful?

Thanks for your feedback!

Submit a ticket

Didn’t find what you are looking for? Sign in or register to submit a support ticket.

Chat with us

Come say hello! Live chat with the R3 developer community on Slack now.

Join the forum

Connect with R3 developers and enthusiasts through our online forum.

We're sorry this page wasn't helpful. Let us know how we can make it better!

Submit a ticket

Didn’t find what you are looking for? Sign in or register to submit a support ticket.

Chat with us

Come say hello! Live chat with the R3 developer community on Slack now.

Join the forum

Connect with R3 developers and enthusiasts through our online forum.